Opinion
August 18, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Imperato, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
On May 20, 1991, the parties entered into a separation agreement which included provisions defining their rights and obligations with respect to child custody and support. The terms of the agreement were subsequently incorporated but not merged in the judgment of divorce. In 1993, the defendant moved to modify the judgment, inter alia, by reducing his child support obligations.
The Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for downward modification of his child support obligation inasmuch as it was predicated on a change of circumstances due to his voluntary change of employment ( see, Feld v. Feld, 214 A.D.2d 884; Epel v. Epel, 139 A.D.2d 488). Furthermore, the request for downward modification depended largely on the credibility of the defendant. The JHO's determination that the relevant parts of the defendant's testimony lacked credibility is entitled to great weight ( see, Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 237 A.D.2d 447; Matter of King v. King, 193 A.D.2d 800).
O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.